this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
520 points (94.7% liked)

Asklemmy

45257 readers
1171 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?

(page 5) 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Nah, I prefer using quantum spookiness for that. Send a steady stream of entangled particles to the other person on the moon first. Any time you do something to the particles on Earth, the ones on the Moon are affected also. The catch is that this disentangles them, so you have only a few limited uses. This is why you want a constant stream of them being entangled.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You also cannot choose the spins of entangled particles, they collapse randomly in either direction when interacted with, meaning you cannot send messages. If you can figure out how to directly influence the spin of generated subatomic particles then BAM you have FTL communication.

But you would be amazed how many obstacles the universe throws in front of you when you try to break the speed of causality. Faster than light communication isn't possible because it makes no sense when you understand it. It's like "getting answers faster than questions." It's nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Wouldn't that still be normal light speed communication from earth to two places on the moon, not FTL communication between two places on the moon?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Because you put the apostrophe in the wrong place?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Perfectly rigid sticks don't exist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

This wouldn't work because the moon is more than 300k km away :P

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

If you're openminded enough to listen to those who disagree with the standard model,
take an elastic band and turn one end. Instead of the band turning, you'll have a twist in your band
and it takes time to unravel the twist if you let go on the other end.
That's what will happen to the stick and this travels at lightspeed,
because this is how light works. Light works like 'the stick' in your example.
And if you try turning it faster the 'elastic band'/stick/'atom on the other end' starts breaking.

If you need FTL communication, then use gravity..somehow.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Probably quantum entanglement, which we (and certainly I) don’t fully understand yet

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You're gonna want a powerful laser probably and ain't no stick that big like not even fkn close not even if we tried so that's why would'nt tbqh

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The issue is, that kind of stick wouldn't even exist. You'd have better luck with between some dwarf planet and its satellite, since the stick would break under its mere weight.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί